Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the very assertive spokesperson from Napa Valley and my friend.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes. So this would allow now priest, rabbi, imam, minister, to stand at the pulpit and offer an endorsement of a particular candidate for public office. What happened to Jefferson's wall of separation? What happened to the idea that, unlike Europe and places like that where they have had religious strife for centuries, that we were able to avoid that because of the wall that Mr. Jefferson very skillfully constructed? This is a dangerous precedent that threatens to politicize charitable and philanthropic organizations. Finally, the health provisions in this bill do nothing to increase accountability for the device industry, employers, or health insurers. If we are going to provide tax relief to corporations, we should have guarantees that the savings will be reinvested in innovation; put more dollars in workers' pockets, and lower insurance premiums. Another issue that is not in dispute, Mr. Speaker, is the following: Overwhelmingly, that tax cut went to share buybacks with corporations and dividends. It did not come to the benefit of people who needed tax relief every single day. There are a number of provisions here that we find very supportable, but the idea that we are doing this in the closing minutes of the 115th Congress, I think, is objectionable to our side. The proposal before us is not paid for. It did not go through the regular order, and I urge our colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the always erudite Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, so the holy grail of the tax cut was the constant reference to the stock market. That is what we have heard for the last year. I wonder about some of our Members, if they want to compare their 401(k) to what it was like in October of 2008. Or as we have witnessed that constant reference to the stock market, the stock market, the stock market, and a reminder that at the end of 2017, the stock market, or the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up to 24,719, and this afternoon, it is at 22,859. Mr. Speaker, I call attention to that because of the chaotic nature in which this legislative body has functioned: no hearings, no witnesses, legislation crafted, we don't know where, brought to the floor, and then referenced as the achievement of a rising stock market. So here we are again without one single hearing, rushing through another tax package that is not offset, and doubles down on the original law's skewed benefits for people at the top, again, without a markup or a single hearing. A rushed process resulted in a failed product. And now, they want to duplicate that process with these changes proposed here today. The bill includes a number of provisions that could have been reconciled very easily with our side enthusiastically, including the references that Mr. Kelly made to retirement benefits. We are all in. But the hit on nonprofits--by the way, taking away benefits for parking for some of the nonprofits, is but another example of how this legislation actually lacked substance. We can do much better. And I certainly want to encourage colleagues to oppose this legislation on process and policy, and just as I yield back, we on both sides here, are very fortunate to have exceptional tax advisers in terms of the staff members, and I want to thank Kara Getz for her work as the chief tax counsel as she moves to her new role in my office as well. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say Merry Christmas to all, but this tax bill does not help my enthusiasm. But I will still say Merry Christmas to all, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we don't object to the three brackets being lowered for the American people in the middle class. We object to the idea that there were no hearings on this and the top brackets were reduced, doubling the estate tax exemption, cutting the top rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. If you want to do that for people at the very end of the economic scale, we are in. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), well-known for her financial acumen.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, could we have clarification as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the efforts of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee, which have resulted in this bipartisan bill. I am particularly pleased that the conference report rejects controversial provisions from the House bill, which would have increased hunger and hardship for millions of Americans, who are struggling to work. The House-passed cuts would have harmed many children, seniors, and working parents in my home state of Massachusetts, where about one in nine residents currently relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program (SNAP) to put food on the table. I would like to comment in more detail about one specific cut that the Conference Committee rejected. It was titled ``Update to Categorical Eligibility'', but the proposal was largely a repeal of a decades-old state option in SNAP that allows states to liberalize the SNAP gross income and asset test by providing them or providing access to a TANF-funded benefit. Repealing this option would have terminated food assistance to close to 2 million low-income people across the country, including families in Massachusetts. The Conference Committee was wise to reject the cut. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee since 1993 and as a member who was actively engaged in our debates and supported final passage of the 1996 law, I'd like to remind my colleagues of this option in SNAP to use TANF income and asset tests to simplify administration and access to benefits families need. Under categorical eligibility, states can raise SNAP income eligibility cutoffs and asset limits and align SNAP's rules with those that states set for benefits funded through TANF. With this option, 32 states have lifted SNAP's income limits, extending the program to more working families. Over 40 states have used the option to adopt less restrictive asset tests, that is, the amount of financial assets, such as in a savings account, that a household may own and remain eligible for SNAP. Making the safety net more flexible and allowing states to be more responsive to the needs of working families was a key design feature of the welfare law. This option to expand what was then called food stamps and the option to expand Medicaid were key elements of that purpose. President Clinton set up the guidelines that govern the option which are very much in keeping with how TANF benefits work. Unfortunately, it would appear that the Trump Administration may attempt to make the policy change Congress specifically rejected, without our authorization. The Administration has signaled that it plans to re-regulate the rules governing categorical eligibility. Let me be clear, the Administration has no authority to roll back or curb the option. The law is straightforward. Households that receive a TANF- funded benefit are categorically eligible for SNAP. And, TANF law is clear that funds under the block grant can go for purposes and populations that cover all SNAP eligible households. This decades-old policy option is not up for debate or reinterpretation. In converting the Aid for Dependent Families entitlement program into a block grant, Congress understood the tremendous flexibility it was giving states to use funds for a wide range of purposes, including both assistance and benefit programs. How states use the funds can be inspirational or frustrating. Many of us wish they would focus more on serving poor children. Nevertheless, the legal flexibility conferred to states under the TANF block grant funding stream to create benefit programs and services with many different purposes and with less restrictive eligibility rules than SNAP also means that states can use these programs to confer categorical eligibility, and provide SNAP for all those determined eligible for such programs. This includes programs and services created solely to leverage this option. The Trump Administration would be wise not to attempt an unlawful rollback of this option. It would run counter to the law and harm families in need.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Chabot and Mr. Sensenbrenner, as well as Mr. Nadler, for bringing this legislation to the floor. Indeed, it is bipartisan in nature. It is not an effort here to go beyond what the rules currently allow in terms of the cap on visas. It would allow Irish nationals to utilize those visas that have not been exhausted by Australia. It is, as Mr. Nadler said, not a substitute for immigration reform, however. We note today that the Pew Center has released new numbers on the issue of those who, in America, are undocumented. While these two issues are unrelated, it is important to point out that we still, in this Congress, have to come up with a solution to a long-awaited problem that we recognize across the Nation, and that is what to do about undocumented citizens. As Mr. Sensenbrenner also pointed out, I think with great accuracy, there are few stories of immigration that can be improved upon over what Irish immigration did in America. In the aftermath of an Gorta Mor, the Great Famine, that took place in the mid-1850s, more than a million people left Ireland and immigrated to the shores of the United States, and a million starved to death on the island of Ireland. So when you consider that the population of Ireland at that time was about 8\1/2\ million people and today it is about 6 million people, it is understandable as to what that relationship has meant. And America, to its everlasting credit, land of the free and home of the brave, welcomed them. The story that they told in succeeding generations--first, second, third generations--of which I enjoy that same privilege, it is pretty extraordinary. I call attention to that because I still think that the rest of the world desires to send many of its best to the United States. It is still, for all of us, this notion that, today, because of the simplicity of travel, you can move back and forth. But what is, I think, a very important component of the story that we just related, when they left, whether it was in the 1850s or, in the case of one grandmother, no return, they were in with both feet. I think what we are pointing out today is that this is still an incredibly strong relationship. I think Mr. Sensenbrenner was right on target with the commentary that he offered about the reciprocal agreement here. We are not substituting anything. We are simply saying that, for those E-3s that are not utilized, Ireland will be able to take advantage of it. I again point out that this relationship, for as long as I can remember, has been one of the great relationships in terms of allies that we have had in the history of America.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, a reminder, this is $3 trillion of borrowed money for this tax plan that the Republicans are offering. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is a very important member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, a reminder that this adds $3 trillion of debt that is all borrowed money. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who is a champion of all issues related to infrastructure in America.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a very valuable member of the Ways and Means Committee and the voice of Chicago.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL. A reminder, Mr. Speaker, that this is $3 trillion of borrowed money to provide for a tax cut for the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who is a longtime and valuable member of the Ways and Means Committee.